M/S HERBICIDES INDIA LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA

section 36(1)(iii) disallowed the interest to the tune of Rs.4,91,250/- out of interest paid by the appellant of Rs.14,25,855/-. The CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance of interest vide order dated 18.09.2007. Before tribunal, the assessee pleaded that the advances were given in normal course of business. The payment to DPFL was for setting

MANDA BUILDERS vs. I.T.O.WARD-21,BIKANER

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

disallowance of Rs.2,76,167 u/s.40A(3) as made by the learned A.O. is improper and unjustified and the learned Commissioner should not have sustained the action of the A.O. 2. For that the addition of Rs.7,01,000/- as sustained by the learned Commissioner is highly unjustified and uncalled for. 3. For that the proceedings initiated u/S.147

C I T JAIPUR vs. J D A JAIPUR

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTINOS vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA

12 of the Act? iii) Any other question of law as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be framed by the Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice.” [2026:RJ-JP:2869-DB] (3 of 7) [ITA-150/2017] 2. This Court further proceeded to examine the question in light of the judgment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ROYAL JEWELLERS

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Section 10 (2A) of the Act, nt of Rs.75,936/- from share of r e e n n d d g d s o , f RAJESH KUMAR 2024.07.29 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. ITA-81-2024 income from Rs.2,04,41,88 head ‘capital g 4. T referred

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SKYWAYS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE COMPANY (P) LTD.

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL

Sections 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(t), 2(u) & 2(x). It is argued that in terms of the said provisions information of Registrants would be clearly covered and thus would have to be protected from disclosure. The said sections are extracted hereinunder for ease of reference: “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (h) “data

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

12 trustees of the Trust belong to three closely related family groups, and their details are as follows: (1) Sri.Babu P. Thomas, his wife Smt.Gracy Babu and their two major sons. (2) Sri.Jose Thomas, his wife Smt.Reena Jose and their major son and daughter. (3) Sri.P.J.Paulose, his wife Smt.Lizzy Paulose and their two major daughters. Due to difficulties in managing